ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS (PART I.G.

Eligibility Requirement (1):

To be eligible to receive an award under this category, an eligible applicant must include a
minimum of 15 States, of which at least 5 States must be governing States (as defined in the
NIA).

Consortium of States
(Governing States are identified with an asterisk.)
1. Washington * 2. Missouri *
3. Connecticut * 4. Nevada *
5. Utah * 6. Idaho *
7. Maine * 8. Wisconsin *
9. North Carolina * 10. Oregon *
11. New Mexico * 12. Hawaii *
13. Vermont * 14. Kansas *
15. Michigan * 16. Montana *
17. West Virginia * 18. Ohio
19. Iowa 20. South Carolina
21. South Dakota 22. Colorado
23. North Dakota 24. Delaware
25. Alabama 26. Kentucky
27. New Hampshire 28. Pennsylvania
29. Oklahoma 30. New Jersey
31. Georgia

Washington State (#1) is a Governing State in addition to serving in the unique role of Lead
Procurement State/Lead State for the Consortium.

12
 which will be Title I accountability (e.g., school, teacher, and principal effectiveness).
The achievement standards and achievement level descriptors will be internationally
benchmarked.

4. A system of professional development focused on assessment literacy. To support

curricular goals, including expected learning progressions, the Consortium will develop
formative assessment tools related to curriculum and lesson development, as well as
scoring and examination of student work. Because a key element of SBAC’s professional
learning approach for educators is to engage teachers directly in developing and scoring
SBAC assessments, teachers and administrators will be asked to contribute to the item
and performance event banks and participate in the moderated scoring process.

(A)(1)(b)(i) As of June 2010, 31 States make up the SMARTER Balanced Assessment

Consortium. Together, they account for the Total State Membership, which, as shown in the
Organizational Structure (see Appendix A1-1), includes the Lead Procurement State/Lead State,
Governing States, and Advisory States.
The Lead Procurement State/Lead State (hereafter referred to as the Lead Procurement State)
is Washington. Washington’s unique role is described in section (A)(1)(b)(ii).
As of June 2010, 17 of the 31 member States are Governing States: They have fully
committed to this Consortium alone and meet the qualifications specified in the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU); are members of only one Consortium applying for a grant in the
Program; have an active role in policy decision-making for the Consortium; provide one
representative to serve on the Steering Committee; provide representative(s) to serve on one or
more working groups; approve the Steering Committee Members and the Executive Committee
Members; and participate in the final decision-making of changes in governance and specific
design elements.
As of June 2010, 14 of the 31 member States are Advisory States: They have not fully
committed to any consortium but support the work of this Consortium; participate in all
Consortium activities but do not have a vote unless the Steering Committee deems it beneficial to
gather input on decisions or chooses to have the Total State Membership vote on an issue; may
contribute to policy, logistical, and implementation discussions that are necessary to fully

20
operationalize the assessment system developed by the Consortium; and are encouraged to
participate in the working groups.
All Consortium efforts will be overseen by the Steering Committee. A subset of this group is
the Executive Committee, consisting of two Co-chairs, a representative from the Lead
Procurement State, a representative from higher education, and one representative each from four
Governing States. The Executive Committee will be accountable for overseeing development of
the assessment system. The Steering Committee—a larger group composed of one representative
from each Governing State in the Consortium—will support the Executive Committee and, to
date, has been accountable for determining the broad picture of the assessment system. The Lead
Procurement State is accountable for managing funds and all procurement on behalf of the
Consortium. For additional details on committee responsibilities, see Appendix A1-2.
To maximize contributions and distribute workload efficiently and effectively, the
Consortium has also created working groups, each charged with specific responsibilities, whose
members are assigned to the group based on skills and expertise. To be sure all working groups
are accomplishing their specific goals and contributing efficiently toward Consortium goals,
Consortium leadership will review and revise group structures as appropriate. See Appendix A1-
3 for a description of Consortium processes for determining committee/working group members
and electing leaders.
Together, the Executive Committee, the Steering Committee, and the Lead Procurement State
will work closely with the Project Management Partner and USED to ensure that Consortium
efforts are coordinated efficiently and effectively to realize the design, development, and
implementation of the assessment system, consistent with the Consortium’s Theory of Action.
As illustrated in the Organizational Structure (Appendix A1-1), the Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) will provide expertise and advice to the Consortium in the areas of
curriculum/instruction, assessment design, and technology. In addition, SBAC has secured
commitments from the following organizations which have expressed their willingness to serve
on the Policy Advisory Committee: American Association of School Administrators (AASA),
American Federation of Teachers (AFT), American Youth Policy Forum (AYPF), Association
for Career and Technical Education (ACTE), Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational
Fund (MALDEF), National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC),
National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), National Association

21
of Elementary School Principals (NAESP), National Association of Secondary School Principals
(NASSP), National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE), National Educators
Association (NEA), National School Boards Association (NSBA), The James B. Hunt, Jr.
Institute for Educational Leadership and Policy, Alliance for Excellence, American Association
of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU), American Council on Education (ACE), and State
Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO).

(A)(1)(b)(ii) Described below are the rights and responsibilities that pertain to all States in the
Consortium, irrespective of role, followed by the rights and responsibilities that are based on a
State’s particular role in the Consortium.
Each Consortium member State, irrespective of role, is entitled to all key deliverables
outlined above in (A)(1)(a). As for responsibilities, each member State is responsible for
adopting the CCSS no later than December 31, 2011, and each State that is a member of the
Consortium in 2014–15 will also be responsible for adopting common achievement standards
and fully implementing Statewide, no later than the 2014–15 school year, the Consortium’s
summative assessment in grades 3–8 and high school, for both English language arts and
mathematics. In addition, all member States are expected to adhere to the governance as outlined
in the MOU; support decisions of the Consortium; follow agreed-upon time lines; participate in
the decision-making process; and identify any barriers in State law, statute, regulation, or policy
to implementing the assessment system and address any such barriers prior to full
implementation of the summative assessment components of the system.
In addition to its general rights and responsibilities as a member State, each Governing State
will be entitled to one representative on the Steering Committee, with one vote on all committee
decisions. Each Governing State will be responsible for contributing significantly to policy,
logistical, and implementation discussions that are necessary to fully operationalize the
assessment system; participating significantly in Consortium-wide activities; participating in at
least one working group; and approving individuals selected for representation and final
decision-making in the following key areas: Steering Committee members, Executive Committee
members, changes in governance and other official documents, and specific design elements.
In addition to its general rights and responsibilities as a member State, each Advisory State
will be entitled to one vote on all polls of the Total State Membership. Each Advisory State also

22
will be responsible for contributing to policy, logistical, and implementation discussions that are
necessary to fully operationalize the proposed assessment system; and participating in
Consortium-wide activities.
The Lead Procurement State has the authority allocated to the Governing States and is also
entitled to Washington’s negotiated indirect rate for federal grants. The Lead Procurement State
also has the responsibilities assigned to the Governing States and, in addition, is responsible for
overseeing the management of funds, in collaboration with the Steering Committee and
Executive Committee; overseeing all procurement on behalf of the Consortium; and providing
one representative to serve on the Executive Committee.
All of these rights and responsibilities are summarized in the following table.

23
Summary Table for (A)(1)(b)(ii): States’ Roles in the Consortium

Role Types of
Description of the Rights and Responsibilities Member States in
Member
Associated with Role this Role
States
Total State All States in the Consortium, by the 2014–15 school Washington
Membership year, will be entitled to the following: Missouri
Connecticut
(Governing 1. Comprehensively designed assessment system Nevada
States, Utah
2. Online test administration with a secure item and
Advisory Idaho
performance event bank
States, Lead Maine
Procurement 3. Consolidated reporting system Wisconsin
State/Lead North Carolina
State) 4. System of professional development Oregon
New Mexico
All States in the Consortium will be responsible for Hawaii
Note: The the following: Vermont
States in this Adopt the CCSS no later than December 31, Kansas
role will be 2011. Michigan
updated as the Montana
State All States that are in the Consortium in 2014–15 will West Virginia
membership also be responsible for the following: Ohio
changes. Iowa
Adopt common achievement standards no later
South Carolina
than the 2014–15 school year, and
South Dakota
Fully implement the summative assessment in
Colorado
grades 3–8 and high school for both ELA and
North Dakota
mathematics and no later than the 2014–15 school
Delaware
year.
Alabama
Kentucky
In addition, States are expected to
New Hampshire
Adhere to the governance as outlined in the Pennsylvania
MOU, Oklahoma
Support Consortium decisions, New Jersey
Follow agreed-upon time lines, Georgia
Participate in decision-making, and
Identify and implement a plan to address State
barriers prior to full implementation of the
summative assessment.
Governing Each Governing State is entitled to Washington
State – One representative on the Steering Committee, Missouri
Additional and Connecticut
rights and One vote on all decisions brought to the Steering Nevada
responsibilities Committee. Utah
Idaho
Each Governing State has the responsibility to Maine

24
 Role Types of
Description of the Rights and Responsibilities Member States in
Member
Associated with Role this Role
States
Note: The Contribute significantly to policy, logistical, and Wisconsin
States in this implementation discussions to fully operationalize North Carolina
role will be the assessment system, Oregon
updated as the Participate significantly in Consortium-wide New Mexico
State activities, Hawaii
membership Participate in at least one working group, Vermont
changes. Approve Steering and Executive Committee Kansas
members, and Michigan
Approve final decision-making in changes in Montana
governance, design elements, and other official West Virginia
documents.
Advisory State Each Advisory State is entitled to Ohio
– Additional One vote when the Total State Membership is Iowa
rights and polled. South Carolina
responsibilities South Dakota
Each Advisory State has the responsibility to Colorado
Contribute to policy, logistical, and North Dakota
Note: The implementation discussions to fully operationalize Delaware
States in this the assessment system, and Alabama
role will be Participate in Consortium-wide activities. Kentucky
updated as the New Hampshire
State Pennsylvania
membership Oklahoma
changes. New Jersey
Georgia
Lead The Lead Procurement State has the authority Washington
Procurement allocated to Governing States and, in addition, to
State/Lead Receive the State’s negotiated indirect rate for
State – federal grants.
Additional
rights and The Lead Procurement State has the responsibilities
responsibilities assigned to Governing States, and, in addition, is
responsible for
Overseeing the management of funds, in
collaboration with the Steering Committee and
Executive Committee,
Overseeing all procurement on behalf of the
Consortium, and
Providing one representative to serve on the
Executive Committee.

25
(A)(1)(b)(iii) Consensus will be the goal for all Consortium decisions. Major decisions for which
there is no consensus will be resolved with a simple majority vote. The Steering Committee will
determine what issues will be referred to the Total State Membership. Each State will have one
vote when polls are conducted. If there is only a one- to three-vote difference, the issue will be
re-examined to seek greater consensus. The Executive Committee will decide which decisions or
issues are referred to the Steering Committee. The Consortium strives for fairness and
transparency in all decisions, and this structure will ensure that polls are conducted
knowledgeably and responsibly with strong State participation.

(A)(1)(b)(iv) Membership in the Consortium is assured when (1) a State declares its membership
level and required MOU signatures are secured (from the State’s Commissioner, State
Superintendent, or Chief; Governor; and, if the State has one, from President/Chair of the State
Board of Education); (2) the signed MOU is submitted to the Consortium Grant Project Manager
(until June 23) or, after August 4, 2010, to the Project Management Partner; (3) the Advisory and
Governing States agree and adhere to the requirements of the governance; (4) the chief
procurement officer of the State seeking membership has reviewed the State’s applicable
procurement rules and provided assurance that it may participate in and make procurements
through the Consortium; (5) the State is committed to identifying any existing barriers in State
law, statute, regulation, or policy to implementing the proposed assessment system and to
addressing any such barriers prior to full implementation of the summative assessment
components of the system; and (6) the State agrees to support all decisions made by the
Consortium. After the Consortium receives the grant award, any request for membership in the
Consortium must be approved by the Consortium’s Executive Committee. Upon approval, the
Project Management Partner will then submit a change of membership to USED for approval. A
State may begin participating in the decision-making process after receipt of the MOU.
Any State may exit the Consortium without cause, but must comply with the following exit
process:
A State requesting to exit the Consortium must submit in writing its request,
The written explanation must include the statutory or policy reasons for the exit,
The written request must be submitted to the Project Management Partner with the same
signatures as required for the MOU,

26
 The Executive Committee will act upon the request within a week of receiving it, and
Upon approval of the request, the Project Management Partner will then submit a change
of membership to USED for approval.
A State may change its role within the Consortium from an Advisory State to a Governing
State or from a Governing State to an Advisory State by submitting its requests and reasons in
writing. The written request must be submitted to the Project Management Partner with the same
signatures as required for the MOU. The Executive Committee will act upon the request within a
week of receiving it and submit it to USED for approval.
As shown in the Summary Table for (A)(1)(b)(v), on October 1, 2010, the Consortium will
initiate its support for all States in the Consortium to adopt the CCSS, with all States completing
their adoption no later than December 31, 2011. Consistent with the Consortium’s commitment
to comparable and rigorous assessments, the Consortium will determine common performance
level descriptors and achievement standards by August 31, 2014. SBAC will also create common
assessment administration procedures and accommodations for English learners and
accommodations for students with disabilities, respectively. Further, the Consortium will create
common policies regarding item release, test security, definition of English learner, and
participation for English learners and students with disabilities, respectively. The time line for
this is presented in the table below.

27
Summary Table for (A)(1)(b)(v): Consortium’s Policy and Definition Time Line

Policy or Definition to be Adopted Approx Date to Initiate Approx Date to Adopt

State adoption of Common Core State
October 1, 2010 December 31, 2011
Standards
Common set of performance level
October 1, 2010 August 31, 2014
descriptors
Common set of achievement standards October 1, 2010 August 31, 2014
Common assessment administration
October 1, 2010 June 30, 2013
procedures
Common item release policy October 1, 2010 June 30, 2013
Common test security policy October 1, 2010 June 30, 2012
Common definition of ―English
October 1, 2010 June 30, 2012
learner‖
Common policies and procedures for
October 1, 2010 June 30, 2012
accommodations for English learners
Common policies and procedures for
accommodations for students with October 1, 2010 June 30, 2012
disabilities
Common policies and procedures for
student participation for English October 1, 2010 June 30, 2013
learners
Common policies and procedures for
student participation for students with October 1, 2010 June 30, 2013
disabilities

The Consortium’s process and time line for setting other policies and definitions will be
developed and determined by the Executive Committee and Steering Committee. The
Committees and working groups will follow the decision-making process described in section
(A)(1)(b)(iii).

(A)(1)(b)(vi) The Consortium’s plan for managing funds received under this grant category will
be governed by the laws and rules of the State of Washington, as the Lead Procurement State,
and in accordance with 34 CFR 80.36. Additionally, Washington is prepared to follow the
guidelines for grant management associated with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009 (ARRA), and it will be legally responsible for the use of grant funds and for ensuring
that the Consortium carries out the project in accordance with federal requirements. Washington
has already established an ARRA quarterly reporting system (also referred to as 1512
Reporting).

28
 Per statute, Washington generates claims against grant funds based on qualifying
reimbursable deliverables submitted on behalf of staff or clients, physical purchases, or
contracted services. Washington’s role as Lead Procurement State for the Consortium will ensure
that monetary exchanges are executed against appropriate and qualifying reimbursable
deliverables aligned to expenditure arrangements (i.e., contracts) made with vendors or
contractors operating under ―personal service contracts,‖ whether individuals, private companies,
government agencies, or educational institutions.
Washington is audited regularly by the State government, and has for the past five years been
without an audit finding. As noted above, the State is prepared to meet the rigorous scrutiny
associated with ARRA funding by leveraging its existing fiscal monitoring and control systems,
including
Washington’s accounting practices, which are stipulated in the State Administrative and
Accounting Manual (SAAM) managed by the State’s Office of Financial Management.
The SAAM (available upon request) provides details and administrative procedures
required of all Washington State agencies, including the State’s education agency, for the
procurement of goods and services. Actions taken to manage the fiscal activities of the
Consortium will, likewise, adhere to policies and procedures outlined in the SAAM.
Comprehensive contracting rules to which Washington will adhere while serving as fiscal
agent on behalf of the Consortium. These rules may be found in the Revised Code of
Washington (RCW) 39.29 ―Personal Service Contracts.‖ Regulations and policies
authorized by this RCW are established by the State’s Office of Financial Management,
and can be found in the SAAM.

(A)(1)(c)(i) The terms and conditions of the MOU are described throughout this section, (A)(1),
and also can be found in Appendix A1-4. The MOU will become effective as of the date entered
and will remain in force until the conclusion of the Program unless terminated earlier in writing
by the Consortium.

(A)(1)(c)(ii) Each State agrees to identify existing barriers to implementing this proposed
assessment system, in State laws, statutes, regulations, or policies, and to remove any such
barriers before full implementation of the summative assessment components of this system.

29
Each State will use a common process to address barriers. The process includes identifying the
issue or risk (if known); the statute, regulation, or policy related to the barrier; the governing
body with the authority to remove the barrier; the approximate date to initiate action to remove
the barrier; and a target date for removing the barrier. States may have chosen to include any
known barriers in the Barriers Table at the time of signing the MOU (see MOUs in Appendix
A1-4).

(A)(1)(d) The Consortium’s procurement process will be dictated by the laws and rules of the
State of Washington, as the Lead Procurement State. Prior to initiating contracts over $20,000,
bids must be acquired through a competitive solicitation process, defined as a formal process
providing an equal and open opportunity to all qualified parties and culminating in a selection
based on criteria delineated in the solicitation, which may include such factors as the consultant’s
fees or costs, ability, capacity, experience, reputation, responsiveness to time limitations,
responsiveness to solicitation requirements, quality of previous performance, and compliance
with statutes and rules relating to contracts or services.
The SAAM provides the following particular guidance: ―Cost is always a factor but does not
need to be the determinant factor. Agencies determine the weighted value of evaluation criteria
and select a contractor and negotiate the contract based on these criteria.‖ In sum, a Washington
State agency has substantial discretion to build the criteria and scoring weights that it deems best
to solicit the contract it wants. The limitations are intended to ensure that all responsible
contractors are given equitable opportunity to win the solicitation. Each State’s commitment to
the Consortium’s procurement process is evidenced by the signature blocks of each State’s chief
procurement official, provided in the MOUs in Appendix A1-4.

30